I'm porting an application from Solaris to Fedora Core. Everything is
fine except for one issue regarding the use of Posix message queues.
In order to solve this problem I'd like to know where the message
queues are physically located. Where on Fedora Core (or Linux for that
matter) are the message queues located? I've tried just looking on the
file system and I've tried looking in the code for a Clue (both the
kernel and glibc). If someone could just tell me, or if there are
pointers to other documentation explaining some of the finer details
of Posix message queue implementation on Linux I'd appreciate it.

Hi,
I just started a network install of FC Devel on a PowerMac, and it all
went amazingly good, but I got missing packages because the mirror I was
using had been updating while I went through the installer... so I had to
grab the newer boot.iso, re-burn it to the same CD-RW, but now it stops
after 3 "agpgart:" and 1 "Serial:" lines very early at boot time :-(
I'll try downloading the latest FC test disc1 and install from there...
Matthias
--
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg) - Linux kernel 2.6.11-1.27_FC3
Load : 0.31 0.40 0.45

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
My locally built mozilla-*1.7.7-1.3.1.i386.rpm suite seems to not
contain libgtkembedmoz.so.
Is that to be expected? Has it been deprecated?
I'm experimenting with gnophone and although the desktop client doesn't
need it, I'm assuming with this plugin, I can use Mozilla to run up
gnophone as a plugin.
gnophone itself looks a little old as well - am I way off track on using
this as a telephony desktop client??
Alan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFClohKCfroLk4EZpkRApllAJ0VRJO50In/gOIGYHhS+5tJMp+hKQCfSy0z
zUHb8TBH5R4H/H5VL0MGdlw=
=VYFg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hi,
Attached you will find a specfile about the ocaml-cryptokit package.
I'm not very clever on specfile :-), so may be you would have some
comments... It was initially from PLD
http://ftp.nest.pld-linux.org/test/SRPMS/ocaml-cryptokit-1.2-1.src.rpm
My doubts are about:
- the calling of "make" ( the CFLAGS...)
- the %{_docdir} was %{_examplesdir} but I had to change it because it
seems not to begin with a "/", so it fails because of that.
--
Get a fully managed dedicated server for €200/month ($257/month)
No time limit for taking care of your server.
You keep the "root" acces if you want. Billing periods are 3 months.
See the conditions at http://aspo.rktmb.org/activities/managed_servers

Yesterday, at about this time, I flawlessly installed 5 CDs
containining a week old distro of Fedora Core 3.9, aka Fedora Core 4
test 3. Having installed Red Hat from 7.1 to 9 and Fedora 1, 2, 3, I
thought the install was flawless until I tried to use Redhat Package
Manager, up2date and then yum to update the many changes that occur
in development in a week and a half's time.
RPM up2date hung on the second panel, yum could get to extras but
not to the development rpm repo at redhat or its mirrors. I being
a user of some experience and a supporter of Fedora could see a
potential enterprise user or newbie becoming real distressed. If
Fedora Core 4 is released without better update resource managers,
then we will not obtain the kudos that I believe F4 deserves.
After 2 hours of frustration I began downloading single pkg updates,
each time muttering, where's pup?
Today, in a more refreshed mood, I looked at my dog Spot, who
gleefully chases snakes, but had been unable to help, yesterday.
The problem? A missing python library effecting both up2date and
yum. Spot's to old to obtain a pup, but I am not.
The need for a reliable "pup" may not become a part of Fedora 4 (due
to devlp. time), but the need is sufficient enough to not have it
relegated to extras.
Many good ideas on the forum. Need core developer leadership on
this one.
Cheers to what I believe may be the best Fedora distro, yet. James
Sylvester
"There is one sense--and a very important one--in which it is
determined quite independently of scientific laws, namely the sense
that it will be what it will be" Bertrand Russell, Presidential
address to the Aristotelian Society. (regarding causation)

Hi all,
Can anyone here provide experience reports or pointers to reports,
regarding the safety of Linux's write support for Sun UFS? It is
marked as experimental and dangerous, but it appears to have been
around since 1998. I'm wondering whether this might be one of those
things that works fine but still carries old labels.
I've googled and found only the same warnings that I would write myself,
if I only read fs/Kconfig & Documentation/filesystems/ufs.txt. I tried
contacting the author, Daniel Pirkl, but his email address listed in
the code the docs is now invalid.
I have several external RAID arrays that up to now have been attached to
Sun boxes and formatted with UFS filesystems. I will be attaching
these arrays now to a RHEL 4 host. If I can safely get away with it,
I'd prefer to keep writing to the UFS volumes, since we're talking
about several TB of data. But if writing is still not believed to be
safe, then I will need to transfer the data to a Linux filesystem with
spare TB of space, reformat the external filesystems, and move the data
back (or variations on that plan). These are filesystems that several
people use for daily work, so I'd rather avoid the copy time if
possible.
Any pointers would be very welcome.
Thanks,
David